Allowed

Achut Narayanrao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary

Bombay HC1 May 2010WP/3274/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging rejection of Common Entrance Test forms for Shikshan Sevak posts. Instead of deciding merits immediately, the court permitted plaintiffs to approach authorities under specific clauses of a circular if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute permitting students to approach authorities under clause (7) and (11) of the circular dated 29.4.2010. No order as to costs.

Achut Narayanrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3274 OF 2010

¶4

Achut s/o Narayanrao Chavan, Age : 28 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Sambar Sadegaon Taluka & District Parbhani

¶5

Kuldeep s/o Devidas Pillewad Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Phulenagar, Mukhed, District Nanded

¶6

Sajesh s/o Ashok Gaikwad, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Nalgir Taluka Udgir District Latur

¶7

Yogesh s/o Bhagwanrao Kambale, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Anand nagar, Dapka road Nilanga District Latur

¶8

Sachin s/o Baburao Dhakde, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Hadga Taluka Nilanga District Latur

¶9

Shakuntala d/o Panditrao Mundhe Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Borda Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani

¶10

Urmila d/o Chandrakant Kugane Age 18 years, Occupation Nil r/o Aadgaon Post Chatori Taluka Palam, District Parbhani

¶11

Rupali d/o Shankarrao Kambale, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Manjra Sugar Factory, Vilasnagar Latur

¶12

¶13

9.	Sunita d/o Ramkrishna Jadhav, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Sawari Taluka Nilanga, District Latur
10.	Devao d/o Munjaji Horgule, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Hatkarwadi Post Rumpuri (Bk), Manwat District Parbhani
11.	Prapti d/o Ganeshrao Desai Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Chudava Taluka Purna District Parbhani
12.	Dwarka d/o Madhavrao Chalak, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Wadi Khurd, Taluka Palam, District Parbhani
13.	Mangal d/o Shivaji Dhondge Age : 18 years, Occupation Nil, R/o Wadgon Taluka Sonpeth District Parbhani
14.	Renuka d/o Gangadhar Waghmare Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Killari Taluka Udgir, District Latur
15.	Charushila d/o Apparao Khade, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Nalanda Nagar, Nanded
16.	Sadhana d/o Pundlik Gawande, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Kolegaon Post Walsawadala Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna
17.	Vaishali d/o Balaprasad Karabe, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Helas, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna
18.	Seema d/o Ashok Kandarkar, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o c/o Balaji Ramkrishna Dahiwal Gandhi Chaman Jalna

¶14

¶15

19.	Rekhadevi d/o Ashok Thorat, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Varegaon, Taluka Phulambri District Aurangabad
20.	Usha d/o Hanumant Arsul, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Wai Post Pangari (Gosawai) Taluka Mantha District Jalna
21.	Ramesh s/o Rukjman Sapkal, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Teachers coloney, Sillod District Aurangabad
22.	Kalu s/o Pandit Kamdi Age : 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Wagamba Taluka Satala Baglal District Nashik
23.	Smita s/o Pradeep Solunke Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Bhokardan, District Aurangabad
24.	Rekha d/o Vishwanath Panchal, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Bodhadi (Bk), Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded
25.	Ravidas s/o Soma Walvi, Age 18 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Rampur Taluka Talamba Akkalkwa ..PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2.	The Director of Education (Primary), Pune Maharashtra State/The Chief Controlling Officer

¶16

¶17

The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune/Controlling Officer ..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Mr A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr S.B. Pulkundwar for the petitioners; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.3840 OF 2010

¶21

Manisha d/o Kachru Khandagale, Age : 20 years, Occupation Nil, r/o C/o Bhanudas Jagdhane, Bharat Nagar, Waluj, Taluka Gangapur & District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶24

The Director of Education (Primary) Pune Maharashtra State/The Chief Controlling Officer

¶25

The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Council Pune/Controlling Officer ..RESPONDENTS

¶26

Mr A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr S.B. Pulkundwar for the petitioner; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondentsno.1 & 2;

¶27

¶28

Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.3

¶29

WITH

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.3994 OF 2010

¶31

Mukesh s/o Pundlikbhai Pardeshi, Age : 23 years, Ocuc. Nil, R/o Kusumba, Tq. and Dist. Dhule ..PETITIONER

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

The State of Maharahtra, Through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

¶34

The Maharashtra State Examination Council, Through its Commissioner, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune-1 ..RESPONDENTS

¶35

Mr P.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶36

WITH

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO.3995 OF 2010

¶38

Seema d/o Prabhakar Arak, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Navjeevan Colony, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad

¶39

¶40

Reema d/o Prabhakar Arak, Age 19 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Navjeevan Colony, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

The Maharashtra State Examination Board, Pune, through its Commissioner ..RESPONDENT

¶43

Mr S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for the respondent.

¶44

WITH

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO.3746 OF 2010

¶46

Swati d/o Damodhar Pawar, Age 26 years, Occu. Nil, R/o at post Palod, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad

¶47

Rupali d/o Murlidhar Kale, Age 22 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Plot No.6, In front of Ramkrishna Vidyalaya, Shivaji Nagar Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad

¶48

Chandarani d/o Harischandra Amrule, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Pagirwadi Post Jamkhed, Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna

¶49

Varsha d/o Pralhad Susar, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Kolegaon Post Walsawangi, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna

¶50

¶51

5.	Vaishali d/o Uttamrao Sakhale, Age 21 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Samarthnagar Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad
6.	Sharda d/o Sahebrao Sapkal, Age 28 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Surangali Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna
7.	Sunita d/o Sahebrao Agare, Age 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Plot No.8, Padegaon, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad
8.	Poonam d/o Narayan Katekar, Age 30 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Row House No.G-3, Kasliwal Puram, Gadiya Vihar, Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32
2.	Maharashtra State Examination Council, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune, Through its President
3.	The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Council, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune ..RESPONDENTS

¶52

Mr G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶53

¶54

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ

¶55

DATE : 1st May, 2010

¶56

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ]

¶57

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶58

The principal challenge in these petitions is with regard to the rejection of the application forms submitted by the petitioners for the Common Entrance Test scheduled to be held on 2nd May, 2010 for Shikshan Sevaks. The common ground for rejecting the application forms of the petitioners is that the petitioners had opted for a medium of instruction to be taught in the event they were selected which was not one of the mediums in which they had either passed the 10th standard, the 12th standard or the D.Ed. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at length on the merits of the matter. The hearing was virtually concluded yesterday at about 5.30 p.m. At that point of time it was urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Division Bench at Nagpur had passed certain orders permitting the students to appear for the examination and the case of the petitioners was similar to the case of the petitioners

¶59

¶60

before the Nagpur Bench. In that light of the matter, therefore, the hearing of all these petitions came to be adjourned for today. With intimation to the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court the hearing of all these petitions has been held today, which is a holiday.

¶61

Copy of the order of the Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench, rendered in Writ Petition No.2026 of 2010, dated 30.4.2010 has been placed before us. In the petition before the Nagpur Bench the facts were similar i.e. for the same reason for which the applications of the petitioners had been rejected, the applications of the petitioners before the Nagpur Bench also had been rejected. Perusal of the order of the Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench would indicate that as far as merits of the matter were concerned, the Division Bench did not interfere with the order of rejecting the applications of the petitioners therein. It was brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the Division Bench at Nagpur that the respondents had issued certain circular dated 29.4.2010 and on the basis of the said circular and on the basis of the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 therein, the following order came to be passed :-

¶62

¶63

"Heard Mr N.B. Bargat, Adv. for petitioners, Mr J.B. Jaiswal, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Mrs T.D. Khade, Adv. for respondent no.2.

¶64

In the instant petition, the petitioners have submitted applications to respondent no.2 seeking permission to appear for Primary Shikshan Sevak, CET (Common Entrance Test Examination) 2009-2010. However, their applications are rejected on the ground that their Establishment Post Codes mentioned in the applications do not match with D.Ed. or 10th or 12th Medium. Counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that respondent no.2 has issued communication dt.29.4.2010 to all the Education Officers (Primary), Zilla Parishad and in clause (7) of the said communication, procedure is stipulated in respect of those candidates whose names are not in any of the lists but will be permitted to appear in the examination on completion of certain formalities. It is submitted by the Counsel for respondent no.2 that if the petitioners' names are not in either of the lists and if the petitioners undertake the procedure stipulated in clause (7) and approach the Authority concerned mentioned in the said clause, the said Authority, after verifying the case of the individual petitioner, will permit such petitioners to appear in the

¶65

¶66

concerned Common Entrance Test which is scheduled to take place on 2.5.2010 if they have completed the said formality.

¶67

In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for respondent on the basis of communication dt. 29.4.2010 issued by respondent no.2 to Education Officer (Primary), the grievance of the petitioners appears to be redressed at this stage. However, they are expected to follow the procedure stipulated in clause (7) of the said communication. The petitioners to communicate the order to the concerned Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad.

¶68

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is disposed of."

¶69

Judicial propriety would demand that we also pass similar orders. Copy of the circular issued by the respondents dated 29.4.2010 has been made available for our perusal as well as certain instructions issued by the Government of Maharashtra, dated 29.4.2010, on the basis of which the said circular has been issued has also been made available for our perusal.

¶70

¶71

Mr Nikam, learned Counsel for the Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune has submitted that the said respondent has issued communication dated 29.4.2010 to all the Education Officers (Primary) of various Zilla Parishads and in clause (7) of the said communication certain procedure is prescribed in respect of those candidates whose names are not in either of the lists i.e. the list of eligible candidates and the list of ineligible candidates and such persons would be permitted to appear for the examination on completion of certain formalities. It is further submitted by Shri Nikam that in the event the names of the petitioners are not in either of the lists and if the petitioners complete the formalities as are required to be done under clause (7) of the said communication, the petitioners may approach the authorities concerned mentioned in the said clause (7) and the authorities, in accordance with the said circular may permit the petitioners to appear for the examination, if the circular applies to the petitioners. Similarly, it is stated that clause (11) has been introduced in the said communication dated 29.4.2010, which deals with those students who have passed from the Navodaya Vidyalaya. If the petitioners have passed from the Navodaya Vidyalaya and if clause (11) of the said circular applies to them, the concerned students may approach the authorities.

¶72

¶73

In view of the said statement and in view of the said circular, we allow the petitions and make Rule absolute by permitting the students, though their application forms have been rejected, to approach the authorities as per the provisions of clause (7) and (11) of the circular dated 29.4.2010 and the authorities may extend the benefit of the said circular to the petitioners, in the event either clause (7) or clause (11) applies to the case of the petitioners.

¶74

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶75

Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon.

¶76

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶77

amj/wp3274.10

¶78

¶79

WRIT PETITION NO. 3274 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 3840 OF 2010, 3994 OF 2010, 3995 OF 2010 AND 3746 OF 2010.

¶80

Date of decision : 1st May, 2010

¶81

For approval and signature

¶82

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS

¶83

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA

¶84

`1.`	`Whether Reporters of Local Papers` `may be allowed to see the judgment?`	`}` `} Yes.`
`2.`	`To be referred to the Reporter or not?`	`} Yes/No`
`3.`	`Whether Their Lordships wish to see` `the fair copy of the judgment?`	`} No.`
`4.`	`Whether this case involves a substantial` `question of law as to the interpretation` `of the Constitution of India, 1950 or` `any Order made thereunder?`	`}` `}` `}` `} No.`
`5.`	`Whether it is to be circulated to the` `Civil Judges?`	`}` `} No.`
`6.`	`Whether the case involves an important` `question of law and whether a copy of` `the judgment should be sent to Mumbai,` `Nagpur and Panaji offices?`	`}` `}` `}` `} No.`

¶85

[ Anant Joshi ] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge

Achut Narayanrao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achut Narayanrao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shripati Rambhau Bhavar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Regional Manager Vs Mohanrao Eknathrao Gomare

Dnyaneshwr Shikshan Prasarak Mandall Jalkot through Secretary Dnyanoba Madhavrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Umesh Machindranath Ghaywat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dodhu Jajabrao Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Tridhari Briquetting Plant through Its Proprietor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.